User talk:Cadmium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Policies and guidelines

As for the edits you made before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

DV8 2XL 17:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Your user name 2 Breast Implant 3 Atomic battery 4 Minor actinides 5 List of nuclear and radiation accidents and forks 6 NIMTO - copied from my talk page 7 Geiger counter 8 Depleted uranium RfC 9 Note 10 Class C amplifier in RF transmitters 11 Hi! 12 Technetium corrosion inhibition 13 Luton flashover 14 AM 15 Biological half-life/Biological halflife. 16 UO3 gas 17 Molybdenum hexacarbonyl 18 picture unPOV 19 Your question to me 20 About the Car battery article 21 Various nuclear topics 22 Post Irradiation Examination (PIE) 23 Image copyright problem with Image:Airdosechernobyl.jpg 24 Please consider rendering an opinion 25 RE: Benjamin Gatti 26 Airdosechernobyl graph 27 Used fuel 28 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles 29 Abitraton 30 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium 31 Thanks 32 Thank you for your request that I go to the library for you 33 UO3(g) condenses 34 Your current opinion? 35 Replies 36 Correct on U fire fume cooling 37 Arbitration 38 Politics on DU UO3 gas 39 Thanks for images 40 Terminology 41 JamesS 42 Fc 43 What the heck? 44 VSEPR 45 OK liquor 46 From Dr Zak 47 Cotton diagram 48 Pyykkö paper 49 Cold fusion 50 Flue Gas Desulfurization 51 Articles about gas scrubbing 52 YBCO 53 Now why exactly does a nonspecialist need to hear about Alan Bond on UO3? 54 Nice informative image 55 Some answers 56 chen.pdf 57 Uranium 58 Actinides in the environment 59 Selective deletions 60 Cdbalun.jpg 61 user box maintenance 62 Barnstar 63 The Wiki Wiffle Bat 64 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 65 Birch reduction 66 License tagging for Image:Chernobylgrassfire.png 67 Cosmogenic isotope 68 Interest in Uranium compounds 69 Image:TVIdiagram.jpg listed for deletion 70 LOFT etc 71 Graphs and diagrams in JPEG format 72 fission products 73 Re:Original research question 74 Dr. Alexander 75 Conversion to PNG 76 Spelling 77 Radiation dose picture 78 CEDE 79 License tagging for Image:10to20Gygammadoseat21days.jpg 80 Industrial Radiography - Radiography 81 Industrial Radiography 82 Masuzo Shikata 83 Nuclear fuel cycle 84 Boiling Crisis 85 Image:Be7fromcosmicrays.jpg listed for deletion 86 Image:Lead210inairatjapan.jpg listed for deletion 87 Image:Mac Internet Explorer.png 88 Improving Chernobyl disaster 89 Wikipedia 90 Isotopes 91 Images listed for deletion 92 Just saying hello 93 Pourbaix Diagrams 94 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Puinsiltasafunctionofdistance.png 95 Image Trinityglassactivity 96 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FPT1fueltestPhebus.png 97 Units in Nuclear fuel 98 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg 99 Perovskite

[edit] Your user name

Welcome to Wikipedia. I couldn't help but notice your chemistry-related user name. I also see that you've contributed to some of those difficult-to-pronounce chemistry articles, so you probably have a pretty impressive résumé. You can share your credentials with other Wikipedians by putting a brief autobiography or profile on your user page, which is the page that others see when they follow the link in your signature. Your user page is User:Cadmium. Of course, you have no obligations to do so. You might also be interested in joining WikiProject Chemistry, or you can at least make yourself familiar with their guidelines. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --TantalumTelluride 23:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've responded to your message on my talk page. --TantalumTelluride 05:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked at your user page User:Cadmium and see that you explain your interest by the fact that Cadmium has filled d-orbitals. But so does Zinc, which is also in group 12. User:Zinc has not yet been taken and it is in a lower period! --Ben Best 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk about "broad minded", Mercury has filled d¹⁰ orbitals, has filled f¹⁴ orbitals, has two oxidation states, is one of the two elements that are liquid at room temperature and was greatly beloved by the alchemists! User:Mercury has not been taken, but if you are having "fun" with Cadmium, there is nothing to argue about. "Whatever turns you on", as they say. Have fun! --Ben Best 16:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a chemist to the extent of being a pharmacist who has learned much more biochemistry on my own than I ever learned in school and am now extending my "hobby" to more inorganic chemistry. I have memorized the periodic table for "fun", and am virtually memorizing John Emsley's Natures Building Blocks [1]. I am glad that my comments have arosed your interest in PES data for Hg2++. Your comments indicate some work you could do for Wikipedia. Your Wikilinked PES was not very helpful, and the explanations linking Photeelectric spectroscopy to Photoemission spectroscopy are poor. Wikipedia has a link for XPS, but not UVPES. I have re-directed the link for PES to Photoelectric_effect#Photoelectron_spectroscopy as opposed to Photoemission spectroscopy, which does not explain the relation of photoelectron to photoemission spectroscopy very well. I may do more work on this, but it may be better for you to do it. --Ben Best 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breast Implant

Cd, I moved your question on Talk:Breast implant to the bottom of the page - the usual procedure for talk pages is to add new stuff at the bottom, I fear no one would have seen it where it was.

As for the X-ray absorption coefficients, I doubt anyone has done a well-controlled scientific study. You could get a rough guess using silicone versus water, since the body is mostly water anyway. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 18:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Breast implant - "Does anyone know the X-ray absroption coeffients for human breast tissue and for silicone."

Even without using a table, it's relatively easy to calculate. Since the low energy photons used in mammography interact predominantly by the photoelectric effect, we know that the mass attenuation coefficient is approximately proportionate to Z^3. Using the atomic number of silicon (Z=14) and the effective atomic number for soft tissue, taken to be that of water (so, Z=7.51), then the silicon has a proportionally higher mass attenuation coefficient compared to soft tissue by a factor of (14/7.51)^3, or 6.47. Since absorption is logarithmic, however, that doesn't mean silicon absorbs 6.47 times as much energy as breast tissue. I assumed soft tissue composition of the breasts (using the Z for water), but breasts in older women tend to be more fatty. So if I had used the Z for fat of 6.46, there would be an even greater difference in the x-ray absorption between breast tissue and silicon.

I looked up the (μ/ρ) in a table for water and bone (close to silicon with a Z=12.31) using 20 keV photons (I think that's what's used for mammography). For water the u/p was 7.958x10^-2 and for bone it was 2.797x10^-1, for a factor of 3.5. That's lower than the number I got above, but still qualitatively a big difference. The discrepancy is due to some of the photons interacting by the Compton effect which is independent of Z. —Brim 04:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page) The silicone used in an implant is a mixture of C, H and Si. This is different to silicon which is the pure element. Please could you recalculate for the silicone, I estimate that the empirical formula of the gel in an implant is likely to be (C2H6Si)n. Please also could you tell me where you got the table for the X-ray properties of different materials from.Cadmium 17:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

From here I got that silicon gel is actually (C2H6OSi)n, and the effective atomic number for that I computed as 10.4, which is still quite a bit higher than soft tissue. I used tables from the textbook Physics of Radiation Therapy by Faiz Khan, 2nd ed. The tables list only a few materials (fat, bone, muscle, soft tissue, air, etc.) so we can only estimate what it would be for silicon gel. The exact value would have to be derived empirically. —Brim 23:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic battery

I just gave this article an overhaul. If you have a moment I would be grateful it if you would give it a glance for any glaring errors or omissions. Thanks. DV8 2XL 20:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Cd, it was more because I have a trees-for-the-forest problem when I've spent too long on an article and I'd rather be embarrassed by my friends over something stupid. DV8 2XL 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor actinides

I wouldn't mind giving you a hand but I don't know how much use I would be as I know little of the transplutonic region of the periodic table. I am semi-retired, and spent the overwhelming bulk of my career in corrosion chemistry/metallurgy. DV8 2XL 00:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of nuclear and radiation accidents and forks

Not a problem Cd, I'll keep an eye on things and lend a hand editing these topics. DV8 2XL 11:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NIMTO - copied from my talk page

I think that NIMTO should go back in, while it was only a small article it is about a real word which has been used by the IAEA. I think that NIMTOism is very real, but the NIMTO article was in a backwater where it did not get much attention. I susepct that was the reason why only 1 edit was ever made on it. I think that the history of science is littered with examples of something which is discovered and then left for many years before interest in that thing increases greatly. Please reply through my talk page. Cadmium 22:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted NIMTO because 5 words taking 20 bytes or so do not make an encyclopedia article. Besides, it looked like a dictionary definition. Feel free to write an article about this topic, if you think that is possible. jni 10:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geiger counter

Cd, two things you should be aware of: The fist person is a no-no here (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid self-referential pronouns) and there is a policy about warnings and advice, which is basicaly that the only warning that is permitted is 'spoiler warnnings' when writing about fictonal works. See: Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates#What are disclaimer templates So what I dropped had to go anyway. You might also check out Wikipedia:General disclaimer. DV8 2XL 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Depleted uranium RfC

Cd, Your input to an RfC at Talk:Depleted uranium would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 04:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Cd. The Section is Talk:Depleted uranium#Request for Comments. I did a great deal of editing on this page that was reverted as "purging' to 'a vehicle to rehabilitate this material in the eyes of lay readers'. DV8 2XL 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you are up for a fight, but editors that want to turn the Depleted uranium page into an ant-DU pamphlet are winning every attempt at establishing NPOV is reverted, other out right violations of policy abound. I know that getting involved in this sort of thing can be exhausting and if you are not up to it I understand, but if I can't get some help in this I am just going to let the article go to hell as I cannot fight them by myself. DV8 2XL 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I do not know who DeathThoureau is, however I do know he was the one trying to put the AfD notice up. Johann Wolfgang 00:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Class C amplifier in RF transmitters

Hi Cadmium, thanks for your recent contributions to electronic amplifier. I think there is definitely some worthwhile information there that should find a home, but at the moment I don't think that page is necessarily the right place for it. I've moved the section to the talk page and added my comments. Perhaps you'd like to take a peek and see if we can figure out what the best way to find a good home for it would be. I think it's an interesting and worthwhile topic (one that's right up my street, actually!), but perhaps a little too detailed for the general article. Graham 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the article over at amplitude modulation, and also some comments on my talk page. Please take a look and see if it's OK with you. Graham 13:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the section you just added to electronic amplifier is not really appropriate. You must remember this isn't a textbook for budding designers - it's only meant to get the basics across. The long discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the various circuits doesn't belong here. What would be appropriate is something like the audio design discussion, where a single representative circuit is explained in broad terms. If anyone is interested enough to take it further, it won't be wikipedia where they'll find the resources they need. It's very easy to fall into the trap of writing a textbook, especially where the subject is one we hold dear - I know I've fallen into that trap quite a bit myself, especially as a newbie. So please don't take it personally if I suibstantially cut back what you've added. Graham 13:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to flag that I've responded to your comment on my talk page. I've removed some of the diagrams you added at amplitude modulation, though I do believe they are good work and should go somewhere - but please read my reasoning first.Graham 11:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hello! I thought I might introduce you to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry! --HappyCamper 02:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technetium corrosion inhibition

Since the whole matter is muddled as it is, and your additions are partly contradictory to the talk page, authoritative references would be welcome. Femto 11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luton flashover

Hi, thanks for your message on this subject. Protection co-ordination is not really my scene, though I could possibly dig up a few references for you, including the National Grid historical policy if I have a few more details. I have never heard of the Luton flashover; I would assume that this was an earth fault on Eastern Electricity plant.

My own thoughts are that this seems to be a rather detailed area of substation design; at best the individual protection schemes are fiendishly complicated. I wonder if it might be better to stick to isses such as running arrangements and protection types (distance, over-reach, blocking, and so on). --BillC 22:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

From "you can see it from the M1", I would surmise this to be the 400/132 kV substation at Sundon (GR: TL 031272). Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any of the circumstances surrounding this earth fault. If you don't mind me saying, the section you've been adding to Electrical substation is not so much about substation design as protection co-ordination and distribution system design. Maybe it would be an idea to think about placing this in separate articles. Also, I would have a look at removing some of the details specific to the UK, otherwise someone is likely to place a {{globalize}} tag on it. Regards, --BillC 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I put BillC's mention of the Sundon substation into LexisNexis and got an article dated Oct 12 1988, from The Times (london). I probably can't post the entire article to wp for copyright reasons, but I can offer you the useful excerpts:

• "Britain's worst peace-time power blackout was averted by 60 seconds"
• "The event is outlined in a technical paper submitted by Mr Eric Eunson, head of the System Development Branch of the board"
• "The description of the breakdown says that 'during thunderstorms accompanied by torrential rain' part of the 400kV supergrid was disrupted by lightning on 20 May, 1986, during storms. It caused 'circuit trippings' at the Sundon substation in Bedfordshire."
• "The crisis was resolved by the speed with which operators brought 1,000 megawatts of emergency gas turbine generators into operation."

The reason the article date is so far from the event date is the article was about evidence given to the "Hinkley Point C Inquiry". I can't find thier proceedings online, but you can access them via the national archives, in dead tree format, in Kew. I'd have thought Eunson's technical paper would be availiable there.

Of course, I may have tracked down another incident entirely.....

Hope this helps! Mike1024 (t/c) 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now this particular incident I do know a little more about. However, it doesn't seem to match the description of the problem which affected Luton. The issue in 1986 was the loss of several 'Flow South' circuits due to near-simultaneous lightning strikes, leading to depressed voltages in southern England. As Mike1024's article says, voltage collapse was averted by the national generation despatch engineer quickly instructing southern-based gas-turbine generators to run. --BillC 20:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That was the only reference to 'Sundon substation' I could find in the LexisNexis newspaper archives (which seem pretty extensive) - any suggestions on other words/names to search for?

I'll ask around and see if I can get any more information. I'm afraid my course is more electronic than electrical (i.e. more milliwatts than megawatts; mobile phone design rather than power grid design and so on) so I don't have the most complete knowledge in this arena...

Thanks, Mike1024 (t/c) 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AM

Thanks for your comments. In no way do I ever guarantee that my disambiguation fixes will be 100% accurate or the best way to go. Of course, if another editor who is more familiar with the content thinks that one of my fixes should link to something else, I encourage them to change it, so long as they don't just flat out revert it so that it is linking to the disambiguation page again :-) Search4Lancer 02:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biological half-life/Biological halflife.

I redirected the one I started over to yours, there wasn't much in mine worth merging. However I started the page because of some red-links with the hyphenated spelling and now their covered too, so the exercise wasn't a complete loss. --DV8 2XL 18:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UO3 gas

I'm an inorganic chemist too, and I don't buy into it ether. I put up the article Uranium trioxide with a section on this listing the references that had been put forward by an editor in the Depleted uranium#Health concernsdebate we are engaged in largely because I wanted to start a discussion on this topic outside the quagmire of the other argument. Please look over them, I came to the same conclusion you did, however I haven't had the time to run the papers down yet--DV8 2XL 16:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering with U03! I will help when the dispute is over. I will try to follow the discussion, but I am away for a week.Stone 15:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molybdenum hexacarbonyl

It seems that for a key synthetic intermediate like moly carbonyl we are giving a lot of play to tangential work by Feldmann. Its nice work but I lean toward de-emphasizing tangents and toward deemphasizing individuals. One could read all the major reviews of Mo(CO)₆, and not find this stuff. So I am curious about your latest inclusion. Smokefoot 15:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture unPOV

the nuclear fuel cycle picture is unpov because the nuclear fuel cycle is not round but linear like a chain. in most countries, most of the fuel is NOT recycled! --Enr-v 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel cycle is a once through cycle in most countries. In some countries like in France, a part of the used fuel is send to reprocessing and only Pu is recycle into MOX for feeding some special reactors (see also fr:MOX). Cycles using Pu and U or Pu, U and minor actinide recycle, have a reality for theoretical physics, not for the factual nuclear fuel chains. --Enr-v 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

very few tonnes of plutonium oxyd are reused mixed with fresh uran into MOX, which feed some reactors in France, Japan and UK. that does not mean the nuclear fuel chain is "closed". after as few dangerous road trips as possible, most of nuclear fuel end in waste storage facility. in France, edf try to recycle U in 2 reactors of the Cruas power plant, but it is not efficient and very expensive. --Enr-v 18:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

the picture is still not neutral. --Enr-v 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question to me

• Answer for you on my talkpage Deviate to excel

[edit] About the Car battery article

I posted a little something here: Talk:Car_battery

Tony 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various nuclear topics

I like the idea of userboxes for ones nuclear idiology. I've looked at the Nuclear reprocessing page and it doesn't look like it needs reformatting yet, but I'll keep and eye. You have done some good work there BTW. Subcritial reactors - the passage should dwell more on the fuel aspects than the reactor technology IMHO which is why I pulled it - if it's rewritten in that way, then yes it should have a place as should every other potential cycle. I like the graphs you've put in nuclear fuel cycle too.

Also could you weight in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enriched limit? --DV8 2XL 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Irradiation Examination (PIE)

Hi Cd, I saw this new add'n to nuclear fuels and I was wondering if if wouldn't be better placed in nuclear fuel cycle --DV8 2XL 09:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll defer to your opinion on this issue - your probably right. DV8 2XL or deviate to excel was a vanity licence plate that I saw many years ago, plus in the distant past I was active in amateur radio and this screen name has the flavor of a call-sign. Silly reasons I know, but there they are. --DV8 2XL 13:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Airdosechernobyl.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Airdosechernobyl.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 12:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider rendering an opinion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean safe nuclear energy thank-you --DV8 2XL 09:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Benjamin Gatti

Benjamin Gatti's ArbCom case has been settled and judgement rendered: he has been placed on probation for one year, and expressly forbidden from disruptive editing. To be banned, three admins must agree, however one can suspend him for up to a week. He is probing with this to see if there are in fact three admins here that will respond (in which case he would still get only a week or two for a first offence) to test the limits of their patience. I think he is going to find out. --DV8 2XL 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airdosechernobyl graph

Hi, I have started to take some steps towards making a more copyright free version of the graph. I have taken public doman data from the OECD (same source as the graph), plus some other data which is freely avaiable, and some data from a data book, I have redone the calculations in excel and drawn a new graph which displays similar data.

If I then cite the sources of data when I upload the graph, as I calculated the lines for the graph and made the drawing, do you think that I will legally own the copyright and thus be able to sign it away ?Cadmium

If you make the image yourself from data, then yes, you do own the copyright. --Carnildo 07:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Used fuel

Hi Cd,

I agree that this needed to be forked out of the Nuclear fuel article,, but I also think you should add a short summary - not just a redirect. Also the MOX section is a bit too detailed given we made it into a new topic and could use a trim. What do you think? --DV8 2XL 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that MOX needs to be grown --DV8 2XL 17:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

great work on MOX, Cd and the graphs are nice, but I can see that your right that this might need an article of it's own in the future. --207.164.4.52 19:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The above comment was by me Cd, the sever here at work sometimes drops session data while I'm signed in and my edits appear as an annon --DV8 2XL 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles

Thanks for coming on board Cd, I am getting close to the end of my rope over this and fresh blood is a big help. You can follow the "ATOMIC GAS" farce here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles/UO3 vapor. Also could you help me keep an eye on uranium trioxide. Another chemist Smokefoot cleaned it up, but our friend James is editing in more of his own delusional ignorance on to the page. Smokefoot thought it was some sort of bad joke until I told him what was going on and he decided not to get involved. --DV8 2XL 19:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abitraton

Saluté Cd,

What happens next in this process is that we all make opining statements that the arbs will use to determine if the case has merit. If they accept (and so far two of them have), we will go to the evidence stage, where we will be expected to provide links to places at Wikipedia where the accused has violated the rules. When the evidence is in the arbs open a 'workshop' page and we spend several months arguing. Then a proposed decision is made on another page (arbs only) and the case closed and the decision handed to the Admins for execution.

If you want to make a statement please do, but short-and-pointed are the way the arbs like it. If the accused answers your submission - let it go - arguments are for the other pages. It will undermine the case if we start fighting in discovery. And James knows this.

There is nothing forcing you to get involved BTW. --DV8 2XL 22:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cd; arguments are underway, please come and join the fray at your earliest convenience. It's vintage James and shouldn't be missed. --DV8 2XL 04:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

All arguments presented to ArbCom should be on violations of policy, and not content. ArbCom's mandate does not allow it to rule on the latter. As you can see James is taking the position that he is the wronged party here, and applying the strategy of mounting an offence in the way of a defence. He is pursuing an attack of bald-faced lies and you can help by pointing these out where you can; if I am the only one then it will come down to his word against mine. --DV8 2XL 15:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cd, thanks for your input at ArbCom, however content issues should go on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles/UO3 vapor as ArbCom won't entertain discussion on content. --DV8 2XL 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cd'

I wouldn't hazard a guess about James' motivations, and in the context of the wiki I don't consider it my concern. Is James is likely to be more reasonable an editor than Benjamin Gatti? I think they (and several other scofflaws about the project) are all cut from the same cloth in that they believe that they're above the rules of conduct and intellectual standards that Wikipedia was built on.

Also I don't think the issue is pro-con nuclear per se; James and I agree that DU ammunition is Not A Good Thing, we differ on the type of evidence and how the issue should be presented. I have been involved with this material for a good long time as I was involved at one point in my career in it's handling, refurbishment and disposal in its role as aircraft trim weights. I have also dealt with unreasonable fears and overly cavalier attitudes among people handling the stuff. He might also be surprised to find that I share his jaundiced view on the quality of the official research in to the health and environmental impacts of DU - but I also don't have any confidence in the unofficial ones ether, and for the same reason; they are both burdened with economic and political baggage. My stand is now what it was then; err on the side of caution - but don't panic.

I am not monitoring the proceedings for the moment as I don't think I can make a contribution to a process that has descended into farce. I will check in later this week and see if things have improved.

Oh, and if you can make James see reason on this subject , you're a better man than I. As you can see from below, you have your work cut out for you. --DV8 2XL 15:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

What do you think about the earilier references I added to uranium trioxide, in terms of the percentage of U which becomes UO₃ at some point when U burns in air at STP? --James S. 17:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your request that I go to the library for you

It's not so much whether the UO₃ gas is produced, because there is no fire (remember, fire is ions from heat falling out of plasma) without at least some of all the major oxides, and in either a uniform or normal distribution of all the likely molecular weights, it's the amount of UO₃ produced. It has to do with the dispersion (other papers in the same and containing directory; new ones below from Uranium trioxide.) Even the U₃O₈, which represents roughtly 75% of the particulates, dissolves partially into uranyl ions when inhaled. The UO₃ is sort of the principle of the thing: Anyone who knows so little as to argue against its possibility is obviously someone I don't want to to be learning combustion statistics from.

So, which of these can you find in your library, and which do you need me to scan in for you?

• W. Blitz and H. Muller (1927) Anorg. Chemie 163, 257.
• R. E. Rundle, N. C. Baenziger, A. S. Wilson, and R. A. McDonald (1948) J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 70, 99.
• K. B. Alberman and J. S. Anderson (1949) J. Chem. Soc. 5, 303.
• H. Hering and P. Perio (1952) Bull. Soc. Chim. 351.
• P. Perio (1953) Bull. Soc. Chim. 256.
• F. Gronvold and H. Haroldsen (1948) Nature 112, 69.
• F. Gronvold (1955) J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 1, 357.
• H. Hoekstra and S. Siegel (1955) J. Phys. Chem. 59, 136.

--James S. 14:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget those, sorry, I was reading a sentence wrong. We want the U.N. proceedings. Give me a few days. In the mean time, please have a look at the "1/3" recombination requirement at the bottom of page 213 of Wilson (1961). Thank you for your help. Sorry about the wrong cites. --James S. 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UO₃(g) condenses

I never said it doesn't condense. Until it does, however, it's a gas, not an aerosol. --James S. 15:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that book ref. Section V.3.1. starting on page 97 (pdf page 115) isn't very clear. The four thermodynamic parameters they give aren't very useful for predicting combustion products. But in a world where people purport to do safety testing by measuring particulates and ignoring vapor condensates, what should we expect? --James S. 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your current opinion?

Do you still believe this?

I think that James should stop pushing his uranium trioxide gas ideas as these ideas appear to be unreasonable. Cadmium 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference you provided shows their free net negative energies of formation. Do you have any remaining doubt that uranyl oxide vapor is a combustion product of uranium? In any case, please update the arbitration comments page with your current understanding. Thank you. --James S. 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear James, I have made an update. I have looked both at the section on UO₃ gas and the crystaline forms of UO₃. I have calculated ΔG for the formation of vapour. I think that an isolated ΔG or ΔH of formation value says little. I think that ΔG for a reaction says more. I am sure that ΔG of formation of methane is negative, but methane is not stable with respect to burning to water and carbon dioxide.Cadmium

Would you plese answer the question?

In response to your recent question, I am strongly opposed to whitewashing health and safety information from subject pages, and have provided my several reasons in response to your message to Mindspillage.

Why did you claim that you have provided me with information about plutonium? You have not. --James S. 02:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replies

I did write the passage about staying in the atmosphere for weeks, based on the CRC "Particles and dispersoids" chart. Certainly a burn in an enclosed space will condense more quickly than UO3(g) from a burn in open air; Salbu 'et al.' (2005) describe just such a difference between the tank hits and the armory fire. I do not yet understand the Born-Haber cycle and its implications, but am following your work with interest. Thank you for your continued support of truth. It might help to remember that, of the solid particulates, 75% turns out to be U3O8 and 25% is UO2. --James S. 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct on U fire fume cooling

Thank you. I agree with your description of the gas cooling process. Since what actually matters is the proportion of soluble uranyl ion (even partially soluble) I do not care if the actual amount of UO₃(g) which survives in the atmosphere for weeks is small. It all depends on the amount of dust in the air, and "air" is usually defined as just a solution of gasses. Everyone assumes that there will be some particulates, but they don't call "air and particulates" by the name "air" in formal chemistry. In applied combustion chemistry, I understand that there will be a lot of particulates, and only the proportion of the gas which disperses faster than the particulates is likely to keep from condensing. But then again, small U3O8 particles (in the thousands of AMUs) are very quickly absorbed and dissolve into a large fraction of uranyl ions if inhaled. --James S. 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I could not belive to read this! Small particles of U3O8 which are easely absorbed in the lunges! I will also state that UO3 particles are more dangerous, because they have the right oxidation state for uranyl ions. This is absolutely right and will have my full support in the Wikipedia! Very small amounts of gas escaped condensation, if calculated right, only a few, do not contribute significantly to the hugeamount of toxix uraniumoxide particles! Also right, will also have my support! Looks we get to some consensus somehow!--Stone 10:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I haven't really looked at that case yet, so I can't give much specific advice. However, if you have any suggestions, please make them known on the talk page or the workshop! If a case can be reasonably settled where no one needs to be banned, that's always a good thing. If you'd like to know when the case seems likely to end, watchlist the Workshop and Proposed Decision pages, and you'll see when the actions starts; cases get moving when someone gets around to them and we think everyone's presented enough evidence, and nothing more certain than that. And if there's anything you'd like to mention to the committee in private, email any arbitrator with it and it will be passed on to all of us. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cd, it would be best if you kept in mind that James was brought to Arbitration on points of conduct - not on a content issue. I will also point out that he was brought there by the mediator in the content dispute, which is still open, and properly much of the work you have done on the arbitration pages belongs there. I took the liberty of copying your calculations on the Born Harber cycle to Talk:Uranium trioxide where they will find a wider audience, but you should consider moving your scientific arguments off the arbitration pages and on to the mediation pages before one of the Clerks refactors them away as content issues. ArbCom will not intervene in content issues and has made this very clear in the past. Your approach to this issue is a valid one; you're just doing it in the wrong place. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles/UO3 vapor and join us there. --DV8 2XL 21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cd unless you want to wind up joined to this ArbCom case I strongly suggest that you don't deal directly with the arbitrators. There is a risk that others may complain and she would have to recuse herself. This is going to take long enough as it is without sidebars on issues like this. All content related ideas for the articles under dispute should properly go on the mediation pages mentioned above. Arbitration is not going to deal with content, what ever they decide we will still have to deal with the pages in question, and that project is being discussed on the mediation pages. --DV8 2XL 04:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics on DU UO3 gas

We should mke clear that the gas is disputed. Is there an easy methode to stick a disputed tag to the UO3 sections in the differnt articles?--Stone 10:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for images

Hi,

I see a lot of people posted on you talk page today, so surely one more can't hurt. Thanks for your images of the Chernobyl radiation components! One minor request, then? If you do future images, could you do them in the scalable vector graphics format instead of jpeg? The SVG format tends to display much better; in particular being readable even when small. Its near-ideal for graphs. Thanks. linas 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Pardon me, but don't you mean that my edits seem as if I were irate? Likewise. It is hard for me to see why anyone wouldn't be irate about the release of teratogens in the atmosphere by those nominally charged with our defense. Do you have any reasons that anyone should not be irate about that? --James S. 10:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JamesS

I will no longer soil myself by debating with this deluded crank. In my opinion his rubbish should have been reverted away with no more concern that we give to the smutty vandalism of teenage schoolboys. The spectacle of seeing several Phds dancing to the tune of that ignoramus was almost more than I could stomach; to have two other editors come out of nowhere to chide ME for MY attitude was too much. Apparently this community holds crackpots in higher esteem than those who actually know what they are talking about. I wish you luck in making that cretin see reason; I have given up. --DV8 2XL 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fc

I saw that your recent edit of ferrocene referred to a "drug" based on ferrocene. You might increase the sensitivity on your BS meter or crack the books. No drug based on ferrocene is currently marketed, although some are in pre-clinical trials apparently. Lots of researchers would like us to think that their cmpds are just about to cure cancer, but we know better, right?.--Smokefoot 20:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Heck, as long as the BS yields grants, who cares? I dimly remember this cubane chemist whose line went like this: we prepare $CUBANE on a ton scale, put it in a rocket and it will go twice as fast. Dr Zak 14:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the heck?

What is this? Alpha, delta, or gamma -- or all three?!? That edit is just plain sloppy. --James S. 20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VSEPR

VSEPR can be used to predict structures of molecules or ions that contain only non-metals. [2] The problem is that the lone pairs in transition metal complexes do not occupy directional orbitals in the same way as those in main group compounds. [3] The same holds true for actinides and lanthanides, with their complex geometry in the f orbitals. The metal-ligand bonding interactions in transition metal complexes may be explained using ligand-field theory or molecular-orbital theory. Treatment with VSEPR theory is too simplistic. [4] --James S. 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

in the case of ... U(VI) the metal does not have any d or f electrons so crystal field energy effects do not matter

On the contrary, U(VI) has 4f¹⁴ and 5d¹⁰. --James S. 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The nonvalent orbitals do affect the bonds of f-series metals (check out some of the wide s shell diameters.) The full core shells which make the metals conductive also minimize the repulsion of bonds, for transitions and f-group metals. I really wouldn't trust anything less than a full Schroedinger eqn. solution, because at some point the exceptions just start overwhelming the rules. 92 is a whole lot of electrons. I gather that when the bond wave mechanics force an approach close enough for the core filed shells to get very close to the valence electrons, Columb repulsion and the Pauli exclusion principle start interacting in complicated ways. VSEPR isn't exactly quantitative to begin with. --James S. 22:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK liquor

I don't understand your question about U oxidation states in U3O8. But removal of the "OK liquor" from uranium trioxide, where it remains at the moment, was originally DV8 2XL's edit, correctly stating that the term refers to uranyl nitrate solution, not UO3. --James S. 21:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Dr Zak

Hello, and thanks for the note that you left on my talk page. My username is in fact what my cat is called. He is a fat shy tabby cat whose name was originally just "Zak" and somehow acquired the title of PhD. No idea how. Now he is called Dr Zak, and his rabies certificate says Dr Zak too. So Dr Zak it is. Dr Zak 14:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cotton diagram

Hi there, Cotton's diagram that we all agree is about the uranyl ion has been reintroduced to illustrate the uranium trioxide article and needs removing again. I shouldn't put it like this, but I have used up my three reverts for the day already. Dr Zak 22:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyykkö paper

Hello! The Pyykkö paper that also mentions uranium trioxide is in the Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1994, 98, 4809-13. I haven't got a copy in front of me and am quoting from memory as the other thing (besides DSL) I'm waiting for is a card for the university library. Maybe next week they'll get their asses in gear. Hope that helps! Dr Zak 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cold fusion

The problem with the Cold fusion article is that there is a controversy, and people on both sides of it have been editing it fairly carefully, and I think it's balanced, and then someone comes along and objects to the idea, because it was controversial back in the early '90s, then faded away, then made a quiet comeback in the science journals. It's hard to deal with the situation because the editors of Nature and Scientific American frequently trash-talk the subject, while about 10-30 papers get published in peer-reviewed electrochemistry and fusion journals each year. It seems like Wikipedia is in a great position to solve the problem, but when someone slaps a {{totallydisputed}} on top of the article, it really can't help. --James S. 21:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference in branching ratios and absence/difference in radiation has been described as due to differences in deuteron angular momentum and bremstraling(sp) radiation, by Stan Szpak and Pam Boss at Navy SPAWAR labs in San Diego, and is described in detail at Cold fusion#Current understanding of nuclear processes. --James S. 21:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flue Gas Desulfurization

Cadmium, thanks for your comment at Talk:Flue Gas Desulfurization regarding electron beam technology. Please see my response there. Regards, - mbeychok 03:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cadmium, see my response to your last comment on my talk page at User talk:mbeychok. Cheers, - mbeychok 22:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cadmium, I would like to help you with your request for FGD technologies that fell by the wayside ... but I don't want to do it via Wikipedia Talk pages. My e-mail address is mbeychok@xxx.net (replace the xxx with cox) and I live in Newport Beach, California, USA. If you will e-mail me at that address and give me your e-mail address, I believe I can get you started on what you wanted. I could also fax you a copy of a paper I wrote in 1974 regarding FGD processes in vogue at that time and you can see which have since more or less disappeared. That paper has an extensive reference list that you could research. But for that, I will also need your fax number (I don't have a scanner, so I cannot e-mail the paper). - mbeychok 05:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles about gas scrubbing

Cadmium: In response to your question about whether the Wikipedia has a general article about scrubbers ... I don't know because I haven't looked for one. However, from what I have seen in the 2-3 months I've been on Wikipedia is that there are many, many chemistry articles of all types written by excellent chemists. But, with all due respect, most of those chemists seem to have very little, if any, knowledge or experience about the industrial applications of chemistry. In fact, most of them seem to have never heard of the chemical engineering discipline. As an example, there are numerous articles on distillation and all of them include images of laboratory glassware distillation apparatus ... but practically no discussion of industrial distillation towers. I have added such discussions to a few of those articles ... but there is still much to do. I guess what I'm trying to say is that those articles are very academic but they lack knowledgeable discussion of practical applications.

As for gas scrubbers, I think that there should be multiple articles, each devoted to one field of application. For example, there are books that have been written about the removal of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from multi-component gas streams. One such book is "Gas Purification", by Kohl and Reisenfeld in about 1979 ... which is now in its fifth or sixth edition written by Kohl and Nielson. The book is a classic and still heavily used by those interested in the monothanolamine (MEA) and diethanolamine (DEA) regenerable processes for removing H2S and CO2 from gas streams. That would be a good choice for an article in Wikipedia. Another choice would be the removing of ammonia from multi-component gases by using either an air stripping tower or a steam stripping tower. A third choice might be the multitude of uses for aqueous caustic (NaOH) solutions as a scrubbing agent. Just those three suggestions alone should keep you busy for a monthe or more. But I would urge you to have them proof-read by people who have actual industrial experience in those fields.

I hope this helps you, - mbeychok 18:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YBCO

Cadmium,

I'm a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The prof for one of my courses has made expanding wiki-stubs part of a final assignment for the course. I was assigned YBCO. I would very much appreciate it if you would hold off on adding any more to the wiki-stub for YBCO until after May 15, 2006 so that I can edit the stub for a grade.

Rich 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

In response to your comment on my user page, I removed your POV drawings because I did not feel they contributed significant insight into the overall structure of YBCO. While the drawings illustrated the coordination environment of each metal very well, they did not clearly show how each drawing fit together to form the 3-D crystal structure of YBCO.

However, I finished editing the article. You are more than welcome to rework the article to reincooperate your POV drawings. The drawing are still on WikiMedia.

Additionally, in the future I would appreciate it if you would make comments on my discussion page instead of my user page.

Thanks for your comments and cooperation on the article. I sincerely appreciate it.

Rich 02:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now why exactly does a nonspecialist need to hear about Alan Bond on UO3?

Cadmium - these articles cannot sustain every paper that is tangentially relevant. Otherwise we'd be writing something very different and the reports would become an incomprehenible collection of factoids. We are looking for major overviews. The level of content that we are seeking is that found in a monographs, with rare citation of a journal. Look at the A- and B-class articles in the chemicals list, and you will see content that is quite general and relatively free from "assertions" and free from minutia. --Smokefoot 01:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to favor mid-level Australian chemists, heartwarming I guess but lacking perspective. If Bond's work were important enough to be in the UO3 main Wikipedia article, then his findings would not have been published in journal J electrochem soc, and certainly would have found their way into monographs and texts. It is a mistake to discuss at any length Mg-U-O ternal phases on the UO3 report. Its a NPOV issue. I encourage you to stick to broader sources. You will notice an emphasis on the main advanced inorganic tomes: Greenwood & Earnshaw, Holleman&Wiberg, Cotton & Wilkinson, Inorganic Synth. Is Bond's (or Hill's work) discussed in the B- and A-grade reports? Tony Hill, Alan Bond, etc's work is fine and creative as it might be, is generally a little too specialized for mention on WE. Are they discussed in Britannica? No again, well, well. Again, you apparently know some chemistry, so I heartily enourage using your special talents abilities to draw materials from the canon of inorganic.--Smokefoot 13:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice informative image

Hi, your images that you've uploaded are really nice and informative, but this one in particular [5] is completely unreadable to me b/c I'm colorblind. Do you have the original data so maybe I could fix it? or could you fix it? it needs the diferent isotope colors to be more based on luminance not chrominance so all can read it. --Deglr6328 18:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some answers

Hi Cd - I don't know what will happen to James. I suspect that he will have some limits placed on his activities; it's up to ArbCom now. He isn't doing his own case any good getting into edit wars.

As for passing large files I think you would be better off doing this with email or one of the data-dump services than through the wiki. --DV8 2XL 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fastest way is to have the person your sending it to open a free g-mail or hot-mail account. These give you a big wack of storage space and you can send big files that way. --DV8 2XL 21:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chen.pdf

I'm convinced of radiation hormesis, but there is no way to make policy out of it, because the amount of radiation people get is in a bimodal distribution. If you relax standards to give most people a hormetic dose, then radiation workers stand the chance of getting a non-hormetic overdose. Plus, the effect is quite slight. I think this exposition does a good job explaining things. --James S. 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I view it the jury is still out over the linear dose vs. degree of harm effect for ionizing radiation. I know that a small dose of gamma rays or cadmium does have a slight protective effect in animals on later exposure, but that is for acute effects only. I think that experiments are still being done on the effect of dose rates and other things with regard to the induction of cancer, I know that in the cold war both the west and the soviets did a lot of radiation biology to try to work out what would happen in a nuclear war to people, plants and animals (much of this work was using large doses looking at acute effects in animals and people). I think that it would take a total nightmare dose it to cause acute effects in trees and herbs.

I spent you the reference to the Co-60 in rebar paper to help us consider how we deal with papers which go against the view that the majority of the science community take. I think that low level radiation can be bad, in India a beach exists where the sand is almost pure ThO2 it has been said by some NGOs that the dose from the sand is having a baneful effect upon the local people.

Thanks for explaining that point about the legal matters of gas vs solidCadmium

[edit] Uranium

Thanks for the info on uranium reaction products. Badagnani 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I always intended to become a chemist but switched into music and ethnomusicology during my college years. I witnessed the interactions between James and the other editors and I will not forget what I saw: many of James' edits were quite legitimate and I saw them continually removed for the apparent reason that the statements cast DU in a bad light for those editors who believe it to be a wonderful material for use in industrial applications, etc. However, it is used now with great frequency and in great amounts in nations other than ours, and it does combust often, creating DU reaction products. This is of interest and concern to many around the world, particularly in those nations where these reaction products must interact with human systems (i.e. citizens), possibly for many years to come. Thus, these issues are of relevance and must be discussed. They may not be of as much relevance to those who wish to promote the material for their research or industrial work but it must be included in the articles. For example, if uranium trioxide is produced from such combustion when a tank or other vehicle is destroyed by a DU-tipped shell--even in very small amounts--it should not be excluded from the article, because even small amounts can be toxic to those in the vicinity. I hope you can understand where I am coming from, as we all have valuable contributions to make. I am not attempting to exclude your text about industrial uses of DU, and neither should you attempt to exclude text about the combustion products as they appear during military uses of this material. Badagnani 19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken but I do not agree on one point: before James (were you there?), things were very, very bad as most editors were in the pro-nuclear industry camp and any other editor who tried to contribute was denounced as uninformed, and their sources denigrated. Keep in mind that for weeks or months James also made many valuable edits and added important information that had nothing to do with the gas you are discussing. Badagnani 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because he's not interested in theoretical or industrial chemistry, but the implications of chemistry, as increasingly used against people around the world in war. Is that difficult to understand? Perhaps it's hard to understand his interest in getting the word out about the subject it's because you aren't from a country where these materials are being combusted here and there on a large scale (or a country that is using them), in light of disinformation campaigns that promote DU as an entirely safe material. Badagnani 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference (besides, possibly, a moral one) between the personal POV of someone wishing to bring to light information about the potential negative health effects of a material increasingly used in war, and the personal POV of someone working for a company or research institution which has a financial interest in promoting future uses of said material. The question is whether this POV motivates the suppression of information of the "other side." I certainly did see this on the nuclear technology side of things, well more than one time. Whether James was guilty of doing the same is debatable, but you cannot argue that he was well outnumbered (as witnessed by his banning through the efforts of this group, which you seem to be happy about). Badagnani 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actinides in the environment

I have been making some additions here and there to keep my hand in. I have been working on two new topics Molten salt battery and Alkali-metal thermal to electric converter and gathering data for Beta-alumina solid electrolyte (used in both). But of course I won't forget my friends.

[edit] Selective deletions

I have no more to discuss with you if you continue to selectively blank large sections of this article which belong in this article to provide a complete description of this material for Wikipedia users. Please modify, summarize, or leave the section as is rather than blanking. Badagnani 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Although stated in his usual mellow way, I think he has a point. Right now I think that if any section needs condensing at this point it is the Military applications section that goes into too much detail. --DV8 2XL 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to roll back a bit on the cutting lest we leave the article vulnerable to kook edits. Duplicating some data is not a big issue if it's germaine to the topic at hand. --DV8 2XL 06:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cdbalun.jpg

Hey Cadmium, I listed Image:Cdbalun.jpg for consideration for deletion because I replaced it with Image:Cdbalun.png. If you would like to express your support or opposition to this request please comment on the discussion page Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 June 5. Thank you. Jecowa 01:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user box maintenance

Hey Cadmium, some of you userboxes are broken. I tried to fix two of them. I hope you don't mind. You also might want to check to make sure that your "RM" userbox link points to the correct page. Thank you. Jecowa 02:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

It's a standard one Cd, but richly deserved for all the work you've done in subjects nuclear. You're quite welcome.

Don't worry about the ArbCom case, the Committee is unlikely to take it on, the user that raised it is dead wrong and everyone that's looked into it sees right through him. It will die a natural death in a few days. But thanks anyway. --DV8 2XL 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I haven't been doing much of anything here myself of late, the garden needs much attention this time of year, although that's tapering off, and the baseball season is underway and I coach and umpire (tho not at the same time!) and I'm only on the wiki when things are slow here at work. I'll get back into the swing of things in the Fall. Summers are short here in the Great White North ....

I'm thinking of continuing to start articles on important uranium compounds and minerals; I also want to start treating selected uranium alloys as well as they seem to be under represented here. --DV8 2XL 20:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wiki Wiffle Bat

Thanks :) --DV8 2XL 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Fuel element failure Doppler broadening Neutron economy Decay heat Tokai, Ibaraki Adjacent-channel interference Neutron capture COGEMA La Hague site Ammonium acetate Fast breeder reactor Nuclear material Co-channel interference Alpha particle European Pressurized Reactor Sodium amalgam Anisole Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station Thioether

Cleanup Harmonisation Blanketing Nuclear energy policy Merge Coordinate covalent bond High level waste Decay mode Add Sources Radio frequency CNO cycle Heat sink Wikify Aptronym Habib Operation Ivy Bells Expand Cyclopentadiene Sodium hydride Fusion energy gain factor

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birch reduction

Yep, that's the one problem with the bot- when a #REDIRECT is messed up, it doesn't recognize it as redirecting, and so reverts it as a blanking and addition of 9 characters. --Rory096 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Chernobylgrassfire.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Chernobylgrassfire.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmogenic isotope

I see you've been working on writing an environmental radioactivity article. I had some comments regarding a merge & redirect [6] you made. -- BlueCanoe 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interest in Uranium compounds

See Portal_talk:Chemistry--Stone 11:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TVIdiagram.jpg listed for deletion

I replaced it with Image:TVIdiagram.png which has typed labels, a smaller file size, and the same resolution. Thus, I have listed your original for deletion. boffy_b 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOFT etc

See talk page on your new grand unified article :-). I don't intend doing anything, just moaning! Bob aka Linuxlad 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphs and diagrams in JPEG format

Hello, Cadmium. I notice you have uploaded many graphs and diagrams in the JPEG format (such as Image:Bombfalloutisotopicsig.jpg). The JPEG format is not the best choice for images such as this; it is best suited for photographs. For graphs, charts, flags, diagrams, and other images with large blocks of a few solid colors, the PNG format is better. (Even better is SVG, if you have the capability to do so.) The PNG format will produce sharper images with a smaller file size. Please read Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload for more information. I have tagged many of your images with {{badJPEG}} to indicate that they should be remade as a PNG. If you need help or have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fission products

I appreciate your defensiveness regarding the fission products article. You'll notice I haven't really been working on it lately in any case; I both undertook a larger project than I had time for, and did so while away from university and references of any kind -- I got in over my head, so to speak. As a result, in the early stages of roughing out a reorganized article, I made factual errors. My bad. That said, I started because the article does not meet the quality standards of Wikipedia, to my judgement. But... it's not worth it to me to start a fight over this. Clearly it is to you, or you wouldn't have flamed my talk page; I respectfully withdraw my intent to improve the article. BryanHolland 09:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I, in turn, am sorry I didn't assume good faith. In the beginning, I didn't mean that I doubted the veracity of your information or that it wasn't cited at all, just that the source or reference for some particular parts was unclear; it read more like a textbook with a ref at the end of a huge section, or had citations (probably not yours) in non-wiki-standard format, like footnotes. Anyway, I had my rewrite speedily deleted; if I have the time and motivation to work on this article, I'll work on it's main page and I hope we can all get along. BryanHolland 04:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Original research question

Hi, regarding your question on the help desk, the simple answer would be that any information that is uploaded to wikipedia must be verifiable through a reliable source. If you are submitting a diagram, the information that it offers must be verifiable. In case of text, the information must still be verifiable. Does this answer your question? I will post this reply to the help desk as well so that others can weigh in with their opinions. -- Lost^(talk) 11:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Alexander

Cadmium, would you be willing to phone or write Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle and ask him why he agrees UO₃ gas is a "quite stable" combustion product? Olin brought up a good question about how many of the metal oxides, such as magnesium oxide, are almost entirely non-gas. Aren't you interested in learning why Dr. Alexander, with his 45 years of experience with the gas, would describe it that way? You've been more-or-less neutral throughout the debate, so I thought I would ask you, too. Nobody else has stepped up to the plate. His phone number is on Talk:Uranium trioxide and he has personally told me that he will respond to any questions on the subject. I think it would be far best in the long run if an opponent or a neutral party interviews him. LossIsNotMore 04:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So argument gets all that effort over so many months, but when the chance presents itself to get on the phone and talk to a guy who has been working with UO₃(g) for 45 years, not a peep? Is that intellectually honest? LossIsNotMore 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion to PNG

Hello, I converted some of your JPEG diagrams to PNG (commons:Category:Diagrams by user Cadmium). See #Graphs and diagrams in JPEG format above for reasoning. I hope you'll start using PNG (even better SVG where possible) from now on. BTW you're doing a great job here. Greetings ~~helix84 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Hello. After the comment you posted on the chernobyl page I went and looked at your contributions, because sometimes I find nice topics to read by following people with similar interestes. However, I'm not happy with your activities from the impression I got skimming them over. I corrected one of your posts to something more wikilike on the radiation poisoning page, but them I cam across this posting on the environmental radioactivity page.

"Note that this subject is very contraversal and many groups with extream views exist, for insatnce The Low Level Radiation Campaign has a very different view to that held by BNFL."

It's littered with spelling errors, and makes me think you're doing it deliberately. I don't want to revert it because it would seem like I have something personal to pick, I'll wait for someone else to weigh in, but I would like to recommend you fix it up. Sillybilly 12:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: It's typos and just general quality of some edits I felt like telling you about. I've since looked through more of your contributions, such as starting and doing most of a new article, and especially the images contributed by you are excellent work! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. These days there is a tremendous effort put into restricting free access to information, and wikipedia is a great, high quality site that's freely accessible and contributable, and I'm on the lookout for subtle derogations in general that seem to intensify these days. I just simply get that subtle paranoid feeling when I do a scientific search on google, few years ago I could get real links, these days the web is mostly annoying popups and overdesigned websites or even commercial journals where they ask for $25 for an article that I don't even know if I want to read, until I see it, and even then, it's just not worth that much to me, because I can read through thousands of dollar's worth in no time and still not be left any smarter. The mass-journal-subscription all you can eat deals run well into the $20,000 per year range, and that too seems ridiculous. I know there is a need to reward the writers and experts in a field, but then there is a need to educate the public too and not withdraw knowledge from the general population. Sites like wikipedia and slashdot are a few of the remaining places on the web that are not pent up into massive control and lockdown of information and "pay per click now I'll let you take a peek" jukebox setups. So I'll get defensive about wikipedia, sometimes at slight hints because it's hard to tell the subtle things, whether it's accidental or intentional, even if it's 99% of the time accidental. Sillybilly 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: I'm interested in nuclear energy inasmuch it's capable of helping with the current Iraqi war and the oncoming energy crisis. I keep looking at this page, where the only nongreenhouse energy sources listed are hydro and nuclear, and hydro is nowhere near enough. Reading the Chernobyl accident page made me drop my 2 cents on the talk page. 190 tons of fuel potentially getting ejected from a core and stuck control rods because of thermal deformation? That's crazy. My main interest though is solar energy, renewable energy, and energy technology in general. Renewable energy is very unprofitable and expensive, but in the end it's probably the one we'll have to accept dealing with.

Hey Cd, I happened upon your chat with SillyBilly about renewables... both of you seem unhappy that CO2 is still a byproduct of wind and solar. These technologies make power "cleanly" (without CO2 production and others), and we're not even sure for how long (manufacturers all predict their products will surely outlast the 25-year-warrenties on PVs). So, when you look at renewables compared to other sources (even nukes), and you look to see who makes the most and least CO2, don't you also have to consider the amount of energy made during the lifetime of the machine/panel/turbine/coal plant? Coal plants make CO2 as they go. Couldn't a PV make "clean" power beyond the waste and pollution used in its manufacture? In other words, shouldn't we compare (amount of energy produced in lifetime) per (amount of CO2 made in lifetime)? Lifetime meaning how long the plant is open and working, or how long a panel or turbine lasts without replacement. Gaviidae 08:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation dose picture

Hello, Cadmium! Did you create Image:Totalexternaldoseratecher.jpg, or just fetch it from an external source? If you are the creator, someone on the talk page for the image requested clarification on the units of the Y axis. I get the impression, from reading the title of the Y axis, that it's a unitless ratio comparing the dose rate at Chernobyl to, perhaps, normal background radiation or something. I'd like to clarify that point on the picture's description, but I'm writing you to make sure I'm correct before I touch anything. Let me know! Thanks! TomTheHand 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CEDE

I'm not sure I understand the sentance "The CEDE is normally used for expressing how likely internal exposure is to cause cancer, as the effective half life in humans of polonium is 37 days and the time between the poisoning and the death was short then the dose suffered by Alexander Litvinenko per unit of activity would have been lower than the CEDE."

Are you sure the CEDE is related to cancer statistics in any way? I thought it was just a way of integrating the dose of radiation you were likely to get if you ingest a particular isotope based on the functions of the isotope and biological 1/2 lives. --Deglr6328 09:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning is that the CEDE for a isotope with a moderate effective half life is for use when considering the dose suffered after injesting a given activity where the organism will live longer than about 10 effective half lives. This would apply to the induction of cancer.

But if you were to injest a very large activity which is able to cause death through acute effects then you can not use the CEDE becuase acute effects are largely controled by dose rate. If you were to be subjected to 10Gy given as Co-60 gamma in one minute then you will be very dead within a few months. However if you get a 10 Gy dose split up into 100 mGy doses where you have a couple of months between each of the doses then you will not die of the acute effects, you might not even notice the effect of each of the doses.

Also if you were to injest an amount of an isotope which would (assuming you were to live for another 40 years) give you a dose of 1 KSv based on the CEDE, but you died after getting a 5 Sv dose then I think it would be wrong to estimate the dose as being the activity multiplied by the CEDE. In this case I would say that it will be more difficult to make the assessment. I would have a good stab at if I was told the mass of the target tissue where the isotope does the critical harm, and details of how the element behaves in the body (how it partions between the different tissues). I would then be able to calculate a daily dose to that organ for a given intake of the radioisotope.Cadmium

[edit] License tagging for Image:10to20Gygammadoseat21days.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:10to20Gygammadoseat21days.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial Radiography - Radiography

Hi, do you know how to turn a page into a dismbig page? I ran across Radiography and people are editing it instead of the the two that split. I think the page should become a disambig pointing to the two other pages, instead of deleting. I can't find the info in the basic wiki links on the talk page. Can you help? (PS answer here so the conversation stays together)Dikke poes 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the two pages were split, or at least, the same beginning was copied, and the Medical Radiography one has all the medical stuff, and the Industrial Radiography has the industrial stuff. It looks to me like that was a good thing, but with the original Radiography page still sitting there, people don't seem to know of the split and are editing the original. So if the original was turned into one of those pages that says, Radiography is (one sentence) and may refer to (link medical) or (link industrial). That would mean deleting the info on that page, which is sure to get me in trouble because I'm new, (and I've asked an admin for info but he looks really busy). Whether or not the United Kingdom (one country) calls pipe inspectors "radiographers" shouldn't be a problem for anyone-- they don't take x-rays of bones for doctors, so why should they be lumped with those guys (if there were little info, that'd be fine, but that's a really long page and other than using radiation to see stuff, they don't seem to have much in common-- UK names aside :) In any case, I'd be willing to help improve either splitted page. They're so lonely. But I don't have the expertise to do anything more serious than copyediting. It looks like half the medical radiography page is also copy of Radiology page=mess! But the Industrial one can be a nice page, I think. So, have you completely given up? Dikke poes 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to make the split, which you describe but the medical radiography brigade reverted it. I had no desire to start an edit war so I did not wade in. Perhapes I will take a look again.Cadmium

[edit] Industrial Radiography

Hey Cd, I checked out Ind Rad and made a few changes (intro paragraph, removed a repeat area). I dunno how much you know about Ind Rad, but as someone who only basicly grasps that you use it to see invisible cracks in, say, airplane skins or oil pipes, I still don't get a clear idea what it does. I'd like the first paragraph to somehow mention a real obvious use (like airplane skins get cracks when they're old and need to be checked or whatever) for the reader, and then rearrange the paragraphs so that the uses paragraphs (like Insp of Welds) comes first and then the nuts n bolts hows (neutrons, other sources) later, with history of radiation paragraph staying where it is. BTW, remember like last summer when BP got in big shit because their Alaskan pipe leaked and it turned out they hadn't inspected it in like forever?? The radio reports mentioned a "pig" as a tool used in inspection. Do "pigs" have anything to do with radiography? If so, it'd be a cool "current events" paragraph to add to Ind Rad. I'm just glad someone is looking and working on these articles, they really sucked. It looks like the MedRad people all up and quit (which also sucks). I can totally copyedit anything. Is there anyone else who's into engineering whatever here at Wikipedia who can also be asked to help? Ind Rad is so cool, it needs a cool Wiki article. Dikke poes 10:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cd, yeah, I thought a long time about that. It seemed to me that the first paragraph sounded more confusing by saying what radiography was not. I didn't look at the medical version too closely, but there it seemed to make more sense because of the confusion with radiotherapy which is (according to the article) not diagnostic. Is all Industrial Radiography diagnostic (do they ever use radiation to change or modify anything? It seems not...), so yeah, lemme look at that again... if I put it back in, I think I need a cleaner way to say it, because I certainly don't want to mention radiotherapy in an Industrial page. Something like, Radiography is using ionising radiation to view objects... (or whatever it says now), but does not change or modify objects, or make them radioactive < -- something like this, since I guess if someone was thinking about changing stuff with radiography, maybe they'd be thinking of food irridation and the corresponding (false) idea of radiating something changes it internally somehow. And thanks again for looking at it and working on it. Dikke poes 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: we should note however that any radiographic work will always modify the object being examined slightly by giving it a dose of radiation. How do I add this? I mean, how does it affect the object? Just by heating it slightly or what? Thx Dikke poes 20:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit again: I didn't know if I'd get to it, but I've dicked around with the pages; take a look and tell me what you think. I still want a nice human-language example for somewhere near the beginning of the article. I keep thinking of airplanes and BP. Keep me posted. Dikke poes 21:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masuzo Shikata

Hey Cadmium, do you know anything about polarographs? I wrote this nasty little stub about this Japanese guy, which I ran across in the History of electrochemistry page, and thought he deserved a page. But my electrochemistry isn't very informed. Could you read the page and see if my explanation is correct, and whether you could better explain why polarography was so important compared to old testing methods (there's a reference link to a website about Shikata that explains it better, but while I kind of think I understood it, I don't have a good enough grasp to paraphrase here without plagarising). I'm just asking, since I'm a bit familiar with your edits and you're a chemist (albeit inorganic, but still). And if you do take a look, thanks in advance. Gaviidae 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear fuel cycle

Hello, would you care to comment on nuclear fuel's talk page about a diagram added to it. Thanks. 69.129.195.170 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boiling Crisis

The boiling curve words do perhaps need a slight tidy. The usual regions on the flux/temperature curve are pool/nucleate boiling, transition boiling, film boiling - the trouble is that the negative slope of the transition region means that what you actually see is a bit dependent on whether it's constant flux, constant temperature, or as here in a RIA, some exotic combination of the two. Will hunt out what's already in WP to see if the story can't be tidied. Bob aka Linuxlad 09:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you here, but it looks like boiling heat transfer generally is a bit untidy in WP Bob aka Linuxlad 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Be7fromcosmicrays.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Be7fromcosmicrays.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigrTex 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lead210inairatjapan.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lead210inairatjapan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigrTex 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mac Internet Explorer.png

Hello, Cadmium. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Mac Internet Explorer.png) was found at the following location: User:Cadmium. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving Chernobyl disaster

Cadmium, I wanted to let you know that I made some edits to the Chernobyl disaster entry. If you disagree let's talk about it on the talk page. My goal with is to get the Chernobyl disaster article towards GA quality level, and it in my opinion cannot be accomplished by merely inserting quantitative data (a lot of it though is very useful and I moved one section under the disaster effects entry). Anyhow, take a look and let's make this something that an average wikipedia reader will benefit from not just us who are specialists in our field. Best regards, --Riurik^(discuss) 21:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for getting back on this. I replied and moved the discussion to the article's talk page to keep it in one place. Best, --Riurik^(discuss) 00:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

TES is a notable source to cite, but unless you can provide an accurate issue number and volume number, publication number, or the best of all a URL then it cannot be referenced easily. Also the below quote had several NPOV issues and statements that read like an essay, which is a lot about WP:OR. This article is highly controversal, its one of the permanently locked articles and people seem to continuously fight over small details. So large arguments would be: "In many ways Wikipedia is a brave social experiment..." - When did she say it, how much credibility does she have other than being a journalist writing for a paper, is it relevent to the article by supporting a factual statement, and most of all its a very obvious opinion. It is mentioned above that academia has looked at Wikipedia both positively and negatively for its faults in accuracy but wide contributor base from many countries. "misued by some lazy students" and "generation of intellectually sluggish persons" which are again simply opinions and could be easily argued the other way. The main jist of it is that it offers an opinion of someone else of which Encyclopedias are not supposed to do unless that is what the article is about, there was notable controvesy about what they said (and then the article is about its role in Wikipedia), as well as giving an unbiased case of the facts which ultimately allows readers to make a decision on their own. Unless you can find a way to neatly tie it in with the above paragraph, remove the quotes or explain how they're prominent in Wikipedia's removal in schools, then perhaps Chloe's Wikipedia is the place for the paragraph. Hope you understand. Let me know if you want any help, I'd be glad to. Mkdw^talk 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isotopes

Hi, Cadmium. You are welcome to revert to the other way of writing isotopes. On matters of style I like to mention that in the edit summary or on the talk page, but I failed to do that this time. I do prefer the "element-atomic mass" style for several reasons, though. First, it is easier to type. Second, it is easier to read when editing, especially when several isotopes are mentioned in a short time and/or when there is a link to the isotope or element. Third, it does not affect other lines of text like the way the other style does. In my browser (Firefox for Macintosh), the ^masselement style causes an increased distance between the current line and the line above. Fourth, it is easier to make links when the full name is used (if the isotope is mentioned later in the article, I put the abbreviation in parentheses, like "(C-14)", so that it can be used without confusion). Fifth, readers do not have to click on the name of the element (or hover over it with the cursor to check the article linked to) or look up the element (if it is not linked) when they do not recognize the element's abbreviation. For people in the sciences, like us, it is easy to recognize most or all of the abbreviations (I think I know all of them except some of the man-made ones), but I would guess that quite a few visitors would not.

As you pointed out, the other style has the advantage of taking up less space. This is an advantage in some cases, such as in a table or image caption. The "abbreviation-atomic mass" (C-14) style could be used but the superscript in front style (¹⁴C) takes up slightly less room than even that. The superscript does make it take up more vertical room, though. You also called the other style more modern. I do not know which style has been favored in the past vs. the present. Since you have a doctorate, you are probably a better judge on that than I am. However, I think that I have encountered the style that I use much more often in textbooks and other publications, with the exception of research material and very technical material. I say "think" because of the unreliability of human perception and memory.

I do not think that there is an official recommendation on what style to use, unless one has been made recently, because I have looked for one in the past and found nothing. The only recommendation or policy that I know of that might apply is the recommendation to use the full version of terms the first time in the article that they are mentioned so that people know what you are talking about. If a policy is made, I think it should recommend that the full version be used the first time. After that, the policy could either choose one style or the other or leave it up to the creator of the article, as is done with American vs. English spelling, except in the case of regional topics.

As for the Chernobyl article specifically, I would be very happy if it was improved regardless of which style is used. I think that the main problem is that new and anonymous users who do not know about science or how Wikipedia works, and for whom English is often a second language, come in and mess up the work of competent editors, as do people who are incapable of controlling their pro or anti nuclear power beliefs. Actually, this is a problem for many high profile and/or controversial topics. It's just that Chernobyl gets it more than any other article I know of. I think things would be significantly improved if it were semiprotected, but I do not know if there is enough outright vandalism for people to support indefinite semiprotection. -- Kjkolb 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cadmium. I'm sorry that it has taken so long to get back to you. The first time that I came back to Wikipedia after you left your message I was in a hurry and did not have time to reply. I went to my talk page and read your message and intended to reply later. However, I forgot about it until I got another message on my talk page.

In regards to semiprotection, there is disagreement among administrators and other editors about when it should be used. To avoid vandalism going unreverted and to free up editors who revert vandalism and warn and/or block users to work on building the encyclopedia, I think that the use of semiprotection should be expanded. I think that it should be used when the vast majority of anonymous edits and/or edits by very new accounts to an article are vandalism, and the rate of vandalism is about once per day or more. Also, I think that articles with a long history of vandalism should be semiprotected indefinitely. I think that most editors and administrators are more conservative about semiprotection than I am (I have never semiprotected an article myself, but I have advocated for semiprotection of certain articles). However, with the apparent increase of vandalism and decrease in vandalism fighting, I think that people are becoming more open to the idea of expanded semiprotection. I say "apparent" because it is just a feeling based on the articles I watch. My belief that semiprotection is being used more widely is based upon the semiprotected articles I have come across lately, some of which have vandalism rates that are high, but are lower than articles originally semiprotected indefinitely. Vandalism on articles used to be reverted within minutes most of the time, with most of the rest caught soon after, but now many go unreverted for days until I check my watchlist and find them.

The chance that subtle vandalism will be noticed decreases greatly with time. While most or all of the information might be self-evident, most vandals are not very bright and may find it useful. Since it is your talk page, it is up to you.] Talk to you later,

Kjkolb 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

• Image:Badpoweramp.jpg
• Image:Badmixer.jpg
• Image:Ammodstage.jpg
• Image:ATUhowitworks1.jpg
• Image:Antennabridge.jpg
• Image:Benzenetetracarboxylicacid.jpg

Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just saying hello

On Recent changes, I noticed an edit to Lead by Cadmium. I thought that was cute. Shalom ^Hello 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pourbaix Diagrams

Hi Cadmium. I apologize if I upset you.

First, please assume good faith in my removal of Pourbaix diagrams from Nickel, Cobalt, and possibly a few other pages. I feel the pourbaix diagrams in these articles may be "too technical for a general audience" and doesn't add much content to the page as a whole. Its way over the heads of most readers. Perhaps they could be included in an article "the electro-chemical behavior of (enter element here)". However, care must be taken to be sure that such information is encyclopedic, because Wikipedia is not ment to be a textbook or repository of diagrams, pourbaix or otherwise.

Also, the size and shape of domains in a pourbaix diagram depends on the presence of reacting anions and their activity in the system, and they can not be deemed as universal. These conditions must be published along with the diagram.

As for the "Original Research", it appears that the diagrams were created using some software, and not faithful reproductions of published, scientifically accepted diagrams.

Thanks, Iepeulas 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Puinsiltasafunctionofdistance.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Puinsiltasafunctionofdistance.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Trinityglassactivity

Hi there, I enjoyed your material on Plutonium in the environment. I put a question on your Image:Trinityglassactivity.png figure talk page. I think I see the answers now, but (I'm pretty new to Wiki editing) it would be nice if the information attached to the figures in commons could contain more complete details about the meaning of the figure, so I think that would be useful to add.

I also posted a question on the Plutonium in the environment talk page re hazards due to NASA's 238Pu RTGs. I really think that a high-speed flyby accident resulting in an Earth impact at a high inclination angle (both Apollo 13 and the Mars 1999 incident were at extreme grazing angles) would likely break any realistic protection system due to the combination of high temperature and extreme dynamic pressure at low altitudes. The short life/high activity per kg of the 238 isotope might make it especially hazardous, it seems to me, and I wonder if you can add anything on this. I have been a defender of flybys of RTGs in the past, but wonder if I need to reconsider. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The concern I have is that because ²³⁸Pu has such a high activity per kg, the biological effects of just a few kg could be large compared to the effects of the much larger amount of lower activity material dispersed in bomb tests. The chemistry comes in because of the time scale for Pu to be sequestered -- if it is all (over simplified I know, just by way of example) sequestered in a very short time -- a year, say -- then the biological damage done by ²³⁸Pu would be something like (24100/88) [ie, the ratio of lifetimes] times (per kg of material) that due to ²³⁹Pu. If it remains biologically active for a very long time, a million years, say, then the total effect, integrated over the lifetime, would not depend much on the specific activity.

I think the NASA RTG encapsulation would probably be effective for a grazing incidence encounter (like Apollo 13), partly because the material is heated over a period of many minutes, so that its temperature is determined by the balance of heat input and radiative and perhaps other heat losses. Thus the peak temperature would not get too high. But an impact at a steep incidence, at 15 km/sec, say, would inevitably result in it getting very deep in the atmosphere while still moving very fast, and I think no reasonable protection can save it in such an extreme case. There is also the issue of dynamic pressure, which is enormous for anything moving that fast at low altitude. At a grazing angle, it will lose most of its energy while still high up, above 30 km, say, before falling to lower altitudes. At a steep angle the entire re-entry could be over in 5 sec. The combination of high T and high P could be very destructive for small pellets, or realistically thick encapsulation.

I guess the question I would ask you is what is the likely time for Pu to be removed from the biosphere? I realize this has no simple answer, as the biosphere has many components, etc. Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FPT1fueltestPhebus.png

Thanks for uploading Image:FPT1fueltestPhebus.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Units in Nuclear fuel

User 90.149.55.128 has pointed out that the units or numbers for power density for the graphs you added don't seem to be right. Instead of 250 W per cubic meter, could the proper units be 250 W per meter of length of the fuel rod? Paul Studier (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perovskite

Hi Cadmium. I saw a thread on Ben's user discussion page, where you are mentioned. You might be interested in having a look. --Leyo 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)